January 2017 – Page 6 – Sheila Kennedy

Oh Wisconsin….

And the hits keep coming…

It’s bad enough that every day brings a new outrage from those a reader of this blog aptly dubbed “the four horsemen of the apocalypse” –Trump, Pence, McConnell and Ryan. What is even more depressing at a time when our hopes for sanity lie with local resistance to the anti-intellectualism, self-dealing and demagoguery in Washington is news of similarly destructive behavior by state-level fools and toadies.

Remember Wisconsin’s Scott Walker? A perfect contemporary Republican–a corrupt lackey of big money, antagonistic to education, dismissive of science? Of course you do.

When I read a friend’s post to the effect that Wisconsin’s DNR webpage had been scrubbed clean of all uses of the word “climate”–and altered to imply a lack of scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming–I checked with Snopes.

Turned out to be true.

In a 26 December 2016 op-ed published by the digital newspaper Urban Milwaukee, environmental writer James Rowen reported that a section of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) web site, originally titled “Climate Change and Wisconsin’s Great Lake,” had been substantially altered:

Gone are references to known “human activities” contributing to a warming planet, warming’s contributions to changes in rainfall and snowfall patterns, extreme weather events, drought, species and economic losses are among other truths whitewashed off this official, taxpayer-financed website.

Snopes reproduced the former text, which had accurately reported the relevant science, and that which replaced it; the new language says that reasons for changing conditions “are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.”

Responding to our request for comment, Wisconsin DNR Communications Director James F Dick stated that their office’s official position is that the science is not settled and that the page was updated to reflect this view.

Of course, the science is settled. As Snopes concludes,

The overwhelming scientific consensus from the climatological community is that the climate is indeed warming and that human activity is contributing to that process.

Here’s what mystifies me: if the settled science is right, and we do not act, we will face massive planetary devastation. If the settled science is wrong, and we do act, the worst thing that will happen is we’ll get cleaner air and water, and cheaper and more renewable energy.

This doesn’t seem like a difficult choice.

Oh yes– fossil fuel companies will make less money. But I’m sure that has nothing to do with climate change denial….

When the history of this era is written–assuming there are survivors left to write that history–it will undoubtedly be called “the age of insanity.”

Comments

Rubber, Meet Road

In the wake of the election, a number of commenters to this blog—here and on Facebook—have asked a simple question: what can we do? How can Americans of good will mount an effective resistance to Trump and the Congressional Republicans?

It’s a question that has been asked on a number of other venues as well.

There is a big difference between sharing concern and disapproval on social media with friends who are likely to agree with us, and actually engaging in productive activism. A decision to make a genuine difference, deciding how to do that and actually following through is where the rubber meets the road, as the old saying goes. So it will be interesting to see who steps up to engage with the forthcoming “Activism Engine.”

Regular readers of this blog know that one of my sons lives in Manhattan, where he is a free-lance web designer and developer. Since the election, he has spent countless hours creating a website geared to people who want to make a difference, but have no idea how to start—people who are not “web savvy,” who have not necessarily been politically involved before.

The site is very simple to use: you can choose your state (or entire country, and eventually, your city), choose what most concerns you from a relatively short list of issues (the environment, reproductive rights, elections and voting rights, etc.), and see what legislation is pending in Congress and/or your state and what direct actions—marches, petitions, protests– are being planned by organizations focused on those issues. There is a place to keep track of your involvement, and even share it on social media if you are so inclined.

Perhaps the most impressive—and useful—part of the site allows you to effortlessly contact your elected officials. Put in your address, and a list comes up of everyone who represents you from your City-County Councilor to the President, with contact information including telephone numbers. No need to go elsewhere to find out who your congressman or state legislator is, no need to look up address or phone number.

My son plans to roll out a beta test in Indiana later this month. BUT—and this is a big BUT—the usefulness of the tool he has worked so hard to create absolutely depends upon the information it will contain. In Indiana, that means that people who are knowledgeable about bills filed in the General Assembly need to insure that information is included and current; people aware of upcoming “direct actions” need to convey that information via the site.

This tool is free to use. The site will never have advertising, it is not an “organization” that will fundraise. It will never share private information about its users. It is meant to be an added “outreach” mechanism for organizations like Hoosier Environmental Council, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU—among many others. We hope–and expect–that those organizations will share information through the Activism Engine as well as their own websites.

As I mentioned, the plan is to “beta test” the site in Indiana, to see how it works, solicit feedback, and to fix any bugs before taking it national.

If this “one-stop-shop” for activism is to work, however, it needs dedicated volunteers who will post the necessary information. If you are interested in being one of those volunteers, or at least finding out what is involved, Please go to this url and fill out the form: https://ae.stephensuess.com/

Be the rubber that meets the road.

Comments

Less Trust, More Conspiracy

“People say” was the way our embarrassing President-elect introduced bizarre conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or others who had offended him in some fashion.

No evidence. No factual basis. In most cases, no plausibility.

The question rational people asked–and still ask–is “why would anyone believe that?” Because clearly, many did. A recent report from Journalists’ Resource offered an answer, or at least the beginning of one.

President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, goes one common conspiracy theory. Another: George W. Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks and let them happen. Conspiracy theories can spread quickly in this era of social media, especially as people sort themselves into information silos, only sharing information with the like-minded. During the 2016 presidential election one candidate frequently leveled charges against his opponent with little evidence, sometimes framing them with the noncommittal phrase “people say.” He won.

A 2009 paper defines conspiracy theories as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role.” Other researchers add that conspiracies often allege the illegal usurpation of political or economic power.

The authors of a 2014 paper found “over half of the American population consistently endorse some kind of conspiratorial narrative about a current political event or phenomenon.”

A number of studies have found that politically active people–especially conservatives with deeply ideological commitments–embrace conspiracy theories that confirm their beliefs and paint their political opponents in a bad light. A new study builds on that previous research, and adds an important element: the absence of trust.

“Conspiracy Endorsements as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust,” published in the American Journal of Political Science in October, investigated the hypothesis that people endorse conspiracy theories to serve “both ideological and psychological needs.” They anticipated that people who endorse such theories would be “both highly knowledgeable about politics and lacking in trust.”

Miller and her team explain that people with deeper political knowledge are better equipped to make connections between abstract political ideas, that they are more likely to seek to protect their positions, and thus more likely to endorse “ideologically congruent” conspiracy theories – that is, theories that are consistent with their political positions.

People with a reasonable amount of trust in social and governmental institutions were far less motivated to accept such theories. The study’s authors asked approximately 2,200 Americans who self-identified as either liberal or conservative to consider eight conspiracies. Four were designed to appeal to conservatives and four to appeal to liberals (for example, respectively, Obama was not born in the U.S. and the Bush Administration knew about 9/11 before it happened). The authors also created a “trust index” based on how much the individuals trusted the federal government, law enforcement, media and the public to do what is right.

Here were some of their conclusions:

Conservatives are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracies than liberals.
Individuals with a high level of trust in institutions are less likely to endorse conspiracy theories.
Conservatives knowledgeable about politics are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of a similar correlation among liberals.
Conservatives knowledgeable about politics who also have little trust in institutions are most associated with endorsement of ideologically consistent conspiracy theories: “Highly knowledgeable conservatives are more likely to engage in ideologically motivated endorsement, especially if they believe that the world is an untrustworthy place.”
For liberals, greater knowledge about politics and greater trust in institutions both appear to decrease their tendency to endorse conspiracy theories.

As I have previously noted, labels like “conservative” and “liberal” can be inexact. (I’ve been called both–and my own definition of both terms is probably different from that of many other people.) Furthermore, there is a demonstrable difference between principled conservatism and the sort of Tea Party and “alt-right light” individuals who call themselves conservatives these days.

That said, the study is illuminating.

Comments

There’s a Lesson Here…..

No politics today. Just some observations from a consumer, underlining the fact that–despite Americans’ reverence for “entrepreneurship” and the private sector– incompetence is just as prevalent there as elsewhere.

Over the past week, I have had three experiences with service providers. Two of them could learn a lot from the third.

Experience #1 was with the website of Thermador, a high-end manufacturer of kitchen appliances. My husband and I were in the market for a new range and refrigerator. Architects get discounts from some manufacturers –not large, but worth pursuing. In order to determine eligibility for the program, we were directed to the company’s website.

What followed would have made a great comedy sketch. The form we were instructed to complete read: Go to [URL] and click on the link for [X ]. Except there was no such link. Called the company; held for a considerable amount of time because (cough) they were “experiencing unusual call volume.” It turned out that the link didn’t show up if you were using Firefox as your browser. We changed to Safari and clicked; it appeared. We were then told to enter additional information–except, again, there was no visible place to enter it. Another call. The woman who answered said their website only works correctly if you use Chrome as your browser. (And no, nothing on the page said that.)

This is a national company. They manufacture pricey appliances, and could probably afford a competent web designer. Let’s just say I hope they pay more attention to their products than they do to their abysmal website.

Experience #2 involved another appliance. Our dishwasher began making awful noises. We called Epic Appliance Repair, a service we had used once a few years ago; they said to expect the repairman between 2 and 4. I rearranged my schedule and waited. When no one had come by 4:30–and no one had called to say there would be a delay–we called and were told it would be around 6:00 pm. No apology.

Six came and went. No repairman, no call. We called; the man who answered (again with no apology) said “let me check and get right back to you.” He didn’t. After a half-hour, we called again. No apology for not calling back, and no explanation. “We’ll be there at nine in the morning.” Right.

No one came at nine. Or ten. Or Eleven. No one answered their phone, and no one ever came or called. Needless to say, we called a different repair service– one that did come when they said.

Experience #3 was refreshingly different. I wanted my outdoor cushions cleaned before putting them away for the winter, and my regular dry cleaners can’t do those. I went online, found a service called Fire Dawgs, and–through their very user-friendly website, requested a time the next day. (I really expected they wouldn’t be able to come on such short notice, but I was wrong.) Within half an hour, I had a call confirming the time and cost, followed by an email reiterating the information and price.

Twenty minutes before the scheduled time, I got a text–and then a phone call–identifying the workman who was on his way, and giving me an estimate of how long it would take him to get from where he was to my house. He came promptly, cleaned the cushions, charged what I’d been quoted and left. I received an emailed receipt shortly after he left–and an email the next day thanking me for my patronage.

Guess who I’ll use again?

Guess who I won’t.

I’ll admit that I am flabbergasted by #1 and #2. You would think, in this day and age, that large national companies would understand the importance of a user-friendly website that works properly on all browsers. You’d think a company purporting to provide a repair SERVICE would understand that people have lives, and need to be informed when a schedule cannot be met. (You’d also think they might apologize for failing to do so or let you know they weren’t ever coming.)

You might also think they’d want positive reviews and maybe even repeat business…but evidently not. (Some of us do know how to post to Yelp.)

Tell me again how competition guarantees that the private sector will always be superior to those ineffectual government workers…

Comments

THIS is What is so Worrisome

Fareed Zakaria is one of the more astute observers of American politics. Perhaps because of his familial background in the Middle East, where stability is rare and democratic institutions rarer, he has a focus on the institutions and norms that make liberal democracies possible. I remember being really impressed with his 2003 book, The Future of Freedom.

Last week, he had a perceptive and deeply troubling column in the Washington Post. As he began

Two decades ago, I wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs that described an unusual and worrying trend: the rise of illiberal democracy. Around the world, dictators were being deposed and elections were proliferating. But in many of the places where ballots were being counted, the rule of law, respect for minorities, freedom of the press and other such traditions were being ignored or abused. Today, I worry that we might be watching the rise of illiberal democracy in the United States — something that should concern anyone, Republican or Democrat, Donald Trump supporter or critic.

As he points out, what we think of as democracy is really a marriage of two separate systems: the choice of political leadership by popular vote, and laws protecting fundamental individual liberties from both the government and those same popular majorities. Hence “liberal democracy.” Zacharia notes that in several countries, the two strands have separated, with democracy (in the form of the vote) persisting, but liberty “under siege.”

Here is what I believe to be his most important–and worrisome–point:

What stunned me as this process unfolded was that laws and rules did little to stop this descent. Many countries had adopted fine constitutions, put in place elaborate checks and balances, and followed best practices from the advanced world. But in the end, liberal democracy was eroded anyway. It turns out that what sustains democracy is not simply legal safeguards and rules, but norms and practices — democratic behavior. This culture of liberal democracy is waning in the United States today.

I shared similar concerns in a post just last month. As Zakaria writes, we are now seeing what our American democracy looks like when those norms of democratic behavior and honorable public service erode, and populism becomes demagoguery.

The parties have collapsed, Congress has caved, professional groups are largely toothless, the media have been rendered irrelevant…What we are left with today is an open, meritocratic, competitive society in which everyone is an entrepreneur, from a congressman to an accountant, always hustling for personal advantage. But who and what remain to nourish and preserve the common good, civic life and liberal democracy?

I just finished reading an important book that gives “chapter and verse” on how we got to the place Zakaria describes. American Amnesia was written by eminent political scientists Jacob Hacker of Yale and Paul Pierson of U.C. Berkeley, and it details (as the subtitle promises) “how the war on government led us to forget what made America prosper.” I will discuss the book’s research and conclusions in blogs to come, but suffice it to say that their copious documentation amply supports Zakaria’s observations.

We can turn this around, but time is running out.

Comments